Whether the appeals court should have ordered a physical examination of the plaintiff to substantiate his prostate cancer claim and whether the court should have held an evidentiary hearing to review medical records from John Randolph Hospital

SHOULD THE APPEALS COURT HAVE ORDERED A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION ON PLAINTIFF TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF HAVING PROSTATE CANCER, WHICH FACT BECAME EVIDENT BY DEFENDANT, VINCENT GORE, M.D., THROUGH DISCOVERY EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY HIM TO THE COURT? DID ATTORNEY, ERIKA W. KOPP, ENTER AN APPEARANCE WITH THE COURT TO ACT ON DEFENDANT, VINCENT GORE'S BEHALF, PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 11(a), PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE DECEMBER 18, 2023, WHICH DOCUMENTS WERE "VINCENT GORE, M.D.S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT", A"ROSEBORO NOTICE" AND "VINCENT GORE, M.D.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT"?COURT AND FORWARDING PLAINTIFF DOCUMENTS DATED SHOULD THE COURT HAVE HELD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO REVIEW THE MEDICAL DISK IN PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL RECORD FROM JOHN RANDOPH HOSPITAL, WHERE HE WAS EVALUATED, WHICH DISK'S RESULTS WOULD HAVE CONFIRMED OR DENIED PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF SUBSEQUENT MEDICAL HEALTH ISSUES RESULTING FROM CONTRACTING THE CORONAVIRUS? ii